About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 73
LANGUAGE
English 73
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 73 (some duplicates have been removed)
improve infrastructure, develop education and encourage development the we are in afghanistan for one overriding reason, to shore our own national security by helping the afghans take control of theirs. that means building up security forces to drive down british combat forces where the afghans themselves able to prevent al qaeda from returning and posing a threat to us and our allies around the world. this is poignant today on a plot executed by al qaeda and extremists with the same perverted ideology as the september 11th attacks. 375 british service men and women have died fighting in afghanistan to strengthen that country and keep britain and britain safe from another 9/11 or 7/7. thousands more including many civilians have risked their lives and hundreds have been injured fighting for the security of our nation. they were called to an international coalition involving 48 countries with a specific you and mandate working at the invitation of a democratically elected government. though there have been many difficult times we should be clear about what has been achieved. in 2009 my
on counternarcotics efforts in afghanistan. after that, former pakistani president musharraf, then we're live with president obama as he addresses the national conference of the national council of la raza, and later the senate returns at 2 eastern for a period of general speeches follow bed later by debate and votes on judicial nominations. >>> also today on the c-span networks a discussion on the political transition in egypt. you'll hear from a member of the country's supreme council of the armed forces, the group that's been overseeing egypt's transition to democracy since the removal of former president hosni mubarak. he'll discuss the pace of change, the demands of protesters and the role of the military. the forum is hosted by the u.s. institute of peace. it's live at 12:15 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. >>> if you want to be informed about what is happening in the world and particularly in american politics and particularly in the congress, it's not so hard. c-span has a digital online archive that goes back to '79 or -- >> 1987. >> 1987. where you can, basically, watch an
.k. will withdraw 500 troops from afghanistan by the end of 2012. that is next on c-span2. .. 500 troops from afghanistan by the end of 2012, reducing troop levels to 9,000. he also took questions on counterterrorism efforts with pakistan. currently the u.k. is the second-largest of the foreign military force in afghanistan. from london, this is just under an hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission i would like to make a statement on afghanistan. formerly i said this government has sought to take a more hard hit security based approach to the mission.vernment as i've said, we are not there to build a perfect democracy, still a model society.re yes, we will help with the detablishment of demographicild institutions and yes, we can improve infrastructure, develop education, encourage democrac development, but we are in afghanistan. we can improve infrastructure, develop education and encourage development the we are in afghanistan for one overriding reason, to shore our own national security by helping the afghans take control of theirs. that means building up security forces to drive
was going to afghanistan and the iraq and wanted to learn from these two men what was the relevance and is a possible i missing something? and kept asking questions about vietnam over and over again there were both amazed that he sat there and listen to in the first time going into his first national security council meeting, the first point* he makes to his people is "afghanistan on is not vietnam" why does he have to say that at the beginning embassy thinks there is a possibility of getting into another vietnam? and bruce who does books for the brookings press at that time was thinking through the firstenergy paper on of guinness and into bruce told less the ghost of vietnam walk the corridors of the white house every day. >> period explain to me how would is those close can affect different presidents in such extraordinarily different fashion. for example,, a jimmy carter trying to go into iran to rescue the hostages and up with a disaster on his hands. thing you have george h. to be bush who you just said send 500,000 troops into iraq and kuwait. theoretically the same lessons t
and military strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. if confirmed, general dempsey, who currently serves as army chief of staff, will succeed admiral mike mahlon who will retire a the end of september. a democrat carl levin chairs the senate armed services committee. >> good morning everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the nomination ofmo general martin dempsey to bethii chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. it was not long ago that general dempsey came before us for his nomination hearing to become ago chief of staff of the army. we welcome him back. thanks again for his 36 years o dedicated service to the nation and his willingness to serve asm the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. as we know from those decades of service, general dempsey is an exceptionally well qualified american soldier and leader.al we we were reminded of the last hearing, hell is also a proud we we husband, father and grandfathero huand,l dempsey, will you remain grateful for the sacrifices that you and your family have made over the years, for the devotion of your beloved wife and the military se
war, which is iraq, afghanistan, to some extent pakistan, possibly iran. this is the battle the united states is facing. the balance of power in the region, the iran iraqi, the indo-pakistani. each one of them have destabilized over 10 years. in the air of israel relationship, barring some dramatic change in egypt over time, israel is so dominant that it creates new realities on the ground. there's a difference to what the united states really says very often. in afghanistan the united states is asking pakistan to do things that create stability, that will weaken pakistan, that potentially cratered an independent regional power in india, that the united states may not appreciate in the long run. and, of course, the invasion of iraq has destroyed the iraq power, they're forgetting nuclear weapons. iran is the dominant conventional military force in the region. if the united states is there. the united states as its policies to withdraw from iraq, the potential for iran to fill the vacuum is extremely high. that in turn changes the balance of power, orderlies the political dynamic in the
that we're fighting today as in iraq, as in afghanistan. that in the end the resolution of that have of this will be a political matter and you say that's wrong. the first order of business and winning the war is to kill the enemy fighters. very forthright statement but one that does go against the grain and i'd ask you to look at afghanistan today and assess whether you think that approach of killing enemy fighters is going to lead us to something that's going to be called a military solution? >> yes i do, but i'm not saying the military solution is the only part of the solution that matters. there has to be that military solution. there has to be the imposition of the mind in the enemy that you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. and i think that's what's happening in afghanistan now. there's something of this in the -- in iraq in the awakening of the sunnis to the west of the country, the idea that this was a tribal battle but the americans turned out to be the strongest tribe and that's something that's being defined by the others and, of course, that is in
the corridor's hall of power. afghanistan, if we listen to president obama during the campaign and are said progressive need to be as tough and pragmatic about president obama as he is about us. he spoke about afghanistan as a good work and he needed to show because of the national security state gregoire politics till we find a way to end that the president remained captive to that. he had to show he was tough. i think what is going on is you have the ability on a number of core issues, one of them is afghanistan, corporate power is another, transpartisan majority who want a way out of afghanistan, believe corporate power is strong in this country and a president with leadership could seize that and find a way to build politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill reform presidencies. and president obama, he is a reform, too ltd. but in these areas he is a reform president. it is imperative for citizens, progress of, citizens of conscience to organize more independently and find ways to drive those issues into the next election but more generally build coalitions that will
represented inside the halls corridor of power. afghanistan, you know, if we listened to president obama during the campaign, and i was one who said that,ing you know, progressives need to be tough and pragmatic about president obama as he is about us, he spoke about afghanistan as the good war, and he did that because he needed to show because of the national security state grip on our politics, until we find a way to end that, a president remains captive to a large extent. he had to show he was tough. i think now what's going on in this country is you have the ability, polls are snapshots, but on a number of core issues, afghanistan, corporate powers and others, there's majorities of people who want a way out of afghanistan, who believe corporate power is too strong in this country, and a president with leadership could seize that. it's not too late, and find a way to build politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill, reform presidencies. president obama is a reform, maybe deluded, too limited, but in these areas, a reform president. it's imperative now for citizens,
in many senior positions at the post in washington and abroad and has covered pakistan and afghanistan extensively, so we are happy to have both of them tonight. after the ambassador's opening remarks, he and kuran will have a conversation before opening it to q&a with the audience, so please come and join me in welcoming the ambassador haqqani and karen de young. [applause] >> thank you very much, patricia, for the kind introduction. of course when i possessed to come here nobody was paying attention to pakistan. nothing gets set about pakistan in the media so when not use this to be a book to communicate and find another excuse to be on c-span. [laughter] some of their for coming here i am. it's a pleasure to see secretary mikhail so it is a pleasure seeing you and thank you for the help and cooperation you offered here and a distinguished audience many of whom i probably know tools you how close i am but i would like to welcome my deputy, the embassy if pakistan is very lucky to have a woman as the second-in-command. we have had to women ambassadors which is a better score than most
services and a surge of combat vets from the iraq and afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for v.a. health care services has increased dramatically in recent years. this bill provides $58.6 billion for v.a. discretionary funding, $2.3 billion over current funding. the bill also includes $52.5 billion in fy 2013 advanced appropriations for vets' medical care. one of the very few areas in which this bill provides an increase in funding is v.a. medical research, which is $72 million over the budget request to restore funding to the current level. with little room to maneuver on the v.a. side of the ledger, the vast majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or defunding certain military construction projects. the bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the request. the milcon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active-duty components. the guard and reserve components, family housing, barrack and other accounts are fully funded at the president's request. every military construction project funded in this bill is authori
in afghanistan and they started the ltte. the people would give the attacks in india as a counterweight to the military power. all those groups of operational connections now and the experts would be and are inclined to plan operations against the west both at home and abroad, so the question becomes then how vulnerable is the pakistani arsenal and how much would someone get a nuclear complex there's several ways. you could of the clandestine sale of materials which a.q., the father of the program for a number of years you could have a rogue officer take over the nuclear installation work you could have my scenario where the transit from the secured facilities to the front lines and the nuclear alert because that's where it's most vulnerable. so you have a combination of weapons, the country which is hostile, the security service which has ties to the jihadists and a lot of them have been indulged by the establishment and the security, and you have something that is a worry and i would suggest it was the great national security fears that we have. >> in your book you have osama bin lade
with the u.s. involvement in afghanistan and iraq. and as we'll hear from general d dudick, there's 400,000 in afghanistan. and the u.s.-led training effort is now as of this week 157,000 police, the cost of this training to the united states alone is about a billion dollars a month. today police assistance programs for the united states government are a multibillion dollar effort led by the department of defense and the department of state but involving a number of other federal agencies. as programs have grown in size and in costs they've also grown in kind. as you saw from the opening photo exhibition running here on the screens, policing around the world is heavily impacted by history, by culture, by legal systems, and by levels of development. the police force is different markedly by country, u.s. police assistance differs markedly by agent and by agency in the countries in which they are working. so today, we have assembled a panel of very distinguished experts to discuss the various experts that the united states government takes in approaching those countries. you have th
persecuted because they are christians, whether it be in afghanistan, whether it be in pakistan or in the egypt and all over, the two questions that i have. how many convictions have there been over the last several years? and how many occasions do you know where the american embassy has advocated for these cases? because generally been there is a problem for the members go to the and become the advocate for how many convictions do you know have been cases brought in the egyptian courts and how many times has the american embassy participated and been involved in any different case? >> thank you very much, mr. wolfe. there has been in the 50 cases of i was involved with personally, there were two investigations. meter investigation resulted in any legal process. so there are no convictions resulting as the complaints to the effect of kidnapping forced marriages and forced conversions of coptic christian women. to my knowledge also and according to my research, the u.s. embassy has not advocated on behalf of these women. >> one nice thing, mr. chairman, as you have the record i u
to former current jihadists. they help to find and the taliban to fight the russians. back in afghanistan. they fought and started the people he did the mumbai attacks in india. as a counterweight to india military power. all those groups have operational connections to each other now. the experts believe that they would be, and are inclined to plan operations against the west, both at home and abroad. so the question becomes then how vulnerable is the pakistani arsenal? how might someone need a nuclear bomb? there's several ways. you could have a rogue officer come you have a clandestine sale of materials which a.q. khan, the father of the nuclear program of pakistan before a number of years. you have a rogue officer taking over nuclear installation, or you can have my scenario where a bomb in transit from its secure facility the front lines in a nuclear, storm because that's where it's most one of the. you're the combination of weapons, a country which is hostile, a security service which has ties to jihadists. jihadists have been indulged on the establishment military and security, and
.a. estimates that the number of iraq and afghanistan veterans in its health care system will reach well over half a million at some point next year. that is this aisn' this a 100% e 2008. this is a big challenge and one that we have no choice but to step up to meet if we're going to avoid some of the same mistakes we saw with the vietnam generation. that's why this bill includes nearly $3 billion to meet the health care needs of veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan, which is a nearly $600 million increase over last year. but it is more than just the sheer number of new veterans that will be coming home to the v.a. in the near near future. it is the extent of their wounds, both visible and invisible, that will require an untold resource from our nation. you know, through the wonders of modern medicine service members who would have been lost in previous conflicts are coming home to live productive and fulfilling lives. but they will need a lifetime of care from the v.a. and that's why part of this bill includes significant investments for research in a number of areas, including trauma
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
risked his life to save his fellow soldiers on the battlefields of afghanistan. today sergeant first class petrie will be honored for his conspicuous gallantry with our nation's highest military decoration: the medal of honor. i will be humbled to be at the white house along with sergeant first class petrie's family, friends, and fellow soldiers, as president obama honors him with the congressional medal of honor. it will be a special day for sergeant first class petrie, for his wife, his children, and his -- and all his family and for his fellow americans. as he becomes only the second living active duty service member to receive the medal of honor for actions in iring or afghanistan. -- in iraq or afghanistan. sergeant first class petrie's story is one of courage and sacrifice and immense love of country. it's a story that began years ago in santa fe with a young plan who struggled in high school but refused to give up and instead buckled down, dug deep, and found the hero within. a hero to the men he saved on that fateful day in afghanistan and a hero to all americans who owe thei
the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is so engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it
invasion of afghanistan which read mights the cold war period and makes the importance of the national security as ever more important for the american public. you've got economic issues at home that certainly dhaka people's perceptions of the administration as well as the ability of the government to finance the things it would like to do. all of those things and many more influence various policies of the carter administration so it's my pleasure to ask art morrissey to the podium. he served in the of science and technology during the carter administration when he developed decision memoranda for the president on many national security issues including space policy and export controls. art? >> thank you. it's interesting to be here. thank you for the introduction to the prison the carter of fenestration space policy in the evolution of the space policy making. i want to thank the stand enterprise institute and marshall institute of the council on the institute for sponsoring this he said. as i look over the audience, it's interesting to see a multi generation of people that i've work
how many of the current inhabitants of guantanamo were arrested in countries other than afghanistan and pakistan. with the help of pakistan. so i think that sometimes we just go from one end of greek allies, great friends which is what was your longtime, in the previous administration, two gosh, these guys are no good, et cetera. this is not the way to do business between two allies and partners. and i think we will not interpret the remarks as a letter. we understand them to be a reflection of american statement of policy, and the americans have the right to defend their homeland by ensuring that terrorists are plotting against the american homeland are dealt with. but as far as the other concern, we are very confident of our sovereignty. we would like to protect our sovereignty. and sovereignty requires that when operations take place in pakistan they should take place without knowledge and our participation. >> a quick follow. does that mean if there's a second rate, that your forces would fire on the rich? >> when i became ambassador to the united states, i went and saw very goo
challenge to the military will leave afghanistan and iraq around the world the budget challenges that face the country. in little over a month, we will mark the tenth anniversary of 9/11. we will honor the victims of that day including 184 people who were tragically taken out by the attack on this very building. and we will renew our commitment to america's dern ability to remain vigilant to these old and new threats that we face, and we are going to redouble with your leadership our efforts to disrupt and feet the terrorists who continue to plot against the united states adding to the great work you have done over the agency. and we will express the american people's appreciation for our armed services, and i might add, and all of you know this who wear a uniform, and your family. the families of the 9/11 generation -- and it's hard to think about it, at least for me, from 9/11, we are, you know, we are ten years away from that day. a lot of these kids were 12 to 15 and under at the time the attack took place and the stepped up this younger generation stepped up to the fact of not just th
recommend to you relative to the issue of contracting in afghanistan a report, which was a major report of this committee in october of 2010 entitled inquiry into the role and oversight of private security contractors in afghanistan. it was a long investigation, a detailed investigation, a very disturbing investigation about the shortfalls of our private security contractors and the regulations and the policies needed to governor their operations. so the article we saw in the paper the other day about some of the funds ending up in the hands of our enemy. was based on that investigation made references, as a matter of fact, to the investigation. but in terms of trying to put an end to some of the ways it is going on relative to contractors in afghanistan, i would recommend that very detailed report that we all worked so hard on. and i was intrigued by your comment about how much personal pleasure you take from not being a lawyer, but i will not pursue that, being a lawyer. and since i'm interested in your rapid confirmation -- and unless there are any additional questions from senator p
the pyrenean revolution which certainly influences our decision making. the soviet invasion of afghanistan which reunites the cold war period and makes the importance of u.s. national security ever more important for the american public. you've got economic issues at home but certainly dhaka people's perceptions of the administration as well as the ability of the government to finance the things you would like to do. all of those things and many more influence various policies of the carter administration and space policy as well. it's to our pleasure to escort morrissey to the podium. he served in the science and technology during the carter administration where he developed the decision memoranda for the president on many national security issues including space policy and export controls. thank you. it's interesting to be here. thank you for the invitation to represent the carter administration space policy in the evolution of space policy making. i'd like to thank the state enterprise institute and the marshall institute the state enterprise council in the institute for sponsoring thes
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get our country back on the path to
had "rambo" in afghanistan, you have a war in the afghanistan and a lot of the way we describe it is about the rambos in afghanistan. obviously, gordon gekko becomes bernie madoff and all the ripoff artist on wall street. the evil guy from "tron," i'm only have joke here, kind of is mark zuckerberg. [laughter] the a-team, the idea of the private contractor you have to hire to fix your problems for you is kind of, in some ways, blackwater or at least our reliance on private contractors and how we think about private contractors. and the evil guy, cobra, in "g.i. joe," was a very clear allusion to islamic fundamentalist terrorism. what i argue in the book is that these images, these stories became powerful in the 1990 and -- 1980s and enduring because of certain structural changes that were happening in our economy. and i told nathan by e-mail that i was going to do this. i stole and used one of the cover graphics of nathan's book to sort of highlight how this happened. but an argument in this book is that things change in the 1980s in a way that made the storylines and the icono
of the war in afghanistan, which is what we're going to spend over the next four years? now there is a good cut that we ought to make. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize a true american hero, private first class joe immediate. private class meed was a member of mike company third battalion, 26th marines. he died in vietnam when his battalion was fightin while carrng a wounded comrade to a wounded helicopter, he stepped on a land mine and was killed. he was on a -- he was only 19 at the time. in recognition of his valor he was awarded the silver star. dwayne crawford, his former commanding officer who recently founded a scholarship in his officer, had these words to say about joe's actions. with total disregard for his own life, he continually exposed himself to danger by administering first aid to his wounded comrades. offering them comforting words and helping them to me
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
influences our decision-making. you're the soviet invasion of afghanistan, which reignites the cold war period and makes the importance of u.s. national security fears ever more important for the american public. you've got economic issues at home that certainly dog people's perceptions of the administration, as well as the ability of the government to finance the things that it would like to do. all of those things and many, many more of course influence very to policies and the carter administration, and certainly space policy as well. so it's my pleasure to ask art to come up to the podium. he developed the memoranda for the present on many national security issues, including space policy and export controls. art. >> thank you. it's interesting to be your come and thank you for the invitation to represent the carter administration space policy in the evolution of space policymaking. i'd like to thank the space enterprise institute and the marshall institute for sponsoring this event. as i look over the audience, it's interesting to see a multi-generational, people that work with over
the wars in iraqnd and afghanistan, which the republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick and not real savings. the yet, the ryan budget, which almost a every house and senate republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. so, they say it is real savings to thee ryan plan with state savings in the reid proposal.-- i am sorry, but you can't have it both ways. reid' further, senator reid's plan actually is all cuts. i don't necessarily like that. contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debtt ceiling increase. mh as much as i don't like this aspect of it, it doesn't include any revenues. even though a "washington post" abc newsabc poll said that 72% f the american public believes we should have those makingma over. $250,000 pay more. 72%.lo what republicans haveng wanted l along and now we are giving it to wen them. and all of the cuts and plans up and supported by republicans in the past. so, we are presentingse a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. the pretense that they are using to reject it just doesn't pass the j smell test. and according to cbo, it sav
or afghanistan. at one point the c.i.a. director, leon panetta, speculated that if osama bin laden had been captured alive, he would have been sent to guantanamo. over time, it became clear that the administration did not have a policy in place that could address this circumstance. and so without a straight answer, we were left in the dark on how this administration would handle an enemy combatant captured overseas. finally after waiting 18 months, i think we have our answer. as was disclosed yesterday, he has been in military custody for months during which time he has been interrogated by various law enforcement agencies. however, now he has been read his miranda rights. this is a somalian terrorist captured overseas has now been read his miranda rights. why? why? why is a man who is a known terrorist and member of the united states -- and enemy of the united states being afforded the protections of an american citizen? and now he is in the hands of civilian authorities and will be given all the rights according to a u.s. citizen in a civilian court. it is truly astonishing that this admi
on a firing line somewhere in afghanistan realizing today could be their last day on this earth so america can live to see another day. that's how serious the consequences are. so, mr. president, i would suggest that instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we differ, let's become analysis of where we find common ground and we do on not raising the debt ceiling. we know we should raise it. we know we can find up to $2.8 trillion, and hopefully more, in cuts in the deficit and spending over time. we know for a fact we have to extend the debt ceiling to some point in time. and if it's passed -- past the presidential election of 2012, let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. which leaves us with one difference and that difference is what is the enforcement mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally divided, is supposed to come on? i submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that causes that to happen. and i would encourage all of us to forget now where we differ, to recogniz
believes we would have been in iraq past 2,004 or we would still be in afghanistan >> that's what i just said. this is a debate we can actually have because i think it's, you know, you can make an argument, at the same time i -- it's the kind of academic question. i don't feel it's going to happen. >> but your great-grandfather would say we have to have these. islamic academic arguments, g maybe. >> don't go pleading fdr on me. >> yeah, you know, one of the things to remember about the brothers and looking at the story is valuable is they were really working out how to answer some of these questions and there was an urgency because the new questions and they felt them and these are questions we just don't feel the kind of tension between the responsibilities of individual, responsibility as a citizen, efiks versus morality, the sound academic terms but@ when it came down to it's like are you going to die for your country, are you going to change society in such a way that it's not as equal or unjust we have huge structural problems in thiƱ country. our property right is like 22%,k seco
there, as little afghanistan's. so a year ago al-shabaab conducted the first attacks, actually outside of somalia. they killed 76 people, including one american in uganda. so there's a growing concern that al-shabaab leaders are striving to strike targets, not just beyond somalia now, but beyond africa. a european plot was recently uncovered. it was in the works and it was uncovered. so links between al-shabaab and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, the most active of all of the al qaeda franchises, are becoming clearer and clearer to us in the united states. they are communicating more about operations. they are working together on training. they are working together on tactics. the bomb making capability that al qaeda has, the expertise that they have there is being combined with al-shabaab's recruits. and these recruits frequently have western passports. many of them have u.s. passports. this is quite a deadly combination. and that's why last month, then cia director panetta called al-shabaab's threat to the u.s. homeland in his words significant and on the rise. u.s. forces have be
military to be getting the news in afghanistan and iraq of all the upheaval in washington, because they're getting the news, of course. and for them to worry, oh, my gosh what happens august 2 if my paycheck isn't there or my wife or my husband -- for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay our mortgage or the basic expenses? i just want to put it in perspective here. we have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands that are making under $20,000 a year. now, those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, and especially if they've got children. my goodness, they're making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps. so i don't think we ought to make them worry for ten seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families. in my state of texas, there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in iraq and afghanistan. there are more than 97,000 service members depl
to continue going into another country's civil war when we have such commitments in afghanistan and iraq. when we are overdeploying our troops, when we are spending money that we are having to borrow, when we are taking the lion's share of this responsibility for our allies. many of us think that we shouldn't be adding another country where it's supposed to be a support function, but we all know that that is what leads to something more and then something more, and i thought senator lugar said it very well; then you have the aftermath of the end of a civil war and the responsibilities for that so this is not the time, in my opinion, to be giving that kind of authority to the president, but above that, above that, we are here because there is a crisis pop which i think -- upon which i think we have a united view of the goal, and that is to put our fiscal house in order so we're not united in the united states senate about how to do it so let's have that debate this week. let's have that debate that says we should be spending more or we should be spending less, that we should be taxing more or t
wars in iraq and afghanistan and participate in the nato exercise in libya. that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that has gone up 84%, military spending, in the last ten years, gone up 84%. we know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs -- that would be like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments, veterans payments. spending for those payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary spending which would include things like building highways, keeping federal prisons open, providing pell grants to college students, giving children from poor families early childhood education, putting money at the national institutes of health for madam chair research. that's one section of the budget. it comprises 12% of our budget. in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up zero percent. no increase in spending in that section. most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years, and mandatory programs, 32% over ten years. the bigge
these savings from withdrawing from iraq and afghanistan. and essential education, job creation, housing, and environmental investments where america's economic recovery and for our strong economic future would be protected from the slashing cuts proposed by the house republicans. the irony is, republican leaders previously have backed all the spending reductions called for in leader reid's plan. now, i don't agree -- and i suspect all of us don't agree with all aspects of this proposed solution. but we're not going to have 100 solutions on this floor. we're going to have one that we can vote on. i wish this would have included new revenue, especially by ending such costly and outdated tax benefits as those still enjoyed by the biggest oil companies to help us pay off our debt even more quickly. i'd like to help pay for the debt incurred by the inexcusable earlier decisions to enter two wars without paying for them. and i continue to believe the surcharge for the wealthiest would mean that they would pay more of their fair share after so many years of tax cuts that have tilted far more t
the entire decade the cost of the afghanistan and iraq war about is about $1.3 trillion. and that is a lot of money.rs again that's over ten years over a decade. this year alone the deficit is expected to be 1400,000,000000 this -- 1.4 trillion. be the deficits this year will be the larger than the cost of iraq and afghanistan over ten years. so the driving force behind the deficit isn't above war in iraq and afghanistan.y it represents only 1% of the the total outlays over the last ten ye years.to thetal total amount of money spent the president -- president obama office took office is $8.5 trillion. three by the end of his first three years in office we will have t added 5 trillion to our gross federal debt. that is a stunning number.bushad bush had a widely criticized and in many ways brightly criticized for hundred 50 billion-dollar deficit. since president obama$4illion has beena has b in office it's been 1.2, 1.3its -- i looks like this year it will be $1.5 trillion. each year more than double that amount. we a
after another. >> host: and two wars. >> guest: and two wars, exactly, iraq and afghanistan. and the velocity of the events and decisions just was so amazing, there really was no breather. and if you look back on it in that context, i mean, it really was a remarkable time for him to take over. and a lot of people asked me, what is it like to interview president obama? what is he like in person? well, he's very methodical. he's very disciplined. the qualities you see in public you see in private when you interview him. i've interviewed five presidents now. i've covered five presidents it's interesting that every other one of the other four there will be some chitchat. there will be a little sort of social moment there in the beginning. i walked into the oval office and president obama said, i've been thoroughly briefed, fire your questions away. and that was it. we went right to the issuing and that's the way he is. >> host: so no -- >> guest: how is your son, your daughter, no. and some people are a little taken aback by that because they think that maybe he should be a litt
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our country's uniform in afghanistan and iraq. i want to be clear. a default will injure america's reputation throughout the world. it will weaken faith in the world's most respected financial power, leaving our country's financial leadership in doubt. simply put, defaulting on the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion. that's why i plead with our republican colleagues, join us without delay in adopting majority leader reid's plan. senator reid's plan will provide certainty for middle-class americans and to the markets because it will provide stability, that's what we need right now through 2013. mr. president, this plan isn't perfect. in fact, including me, believe it should include revenues. it doesn't but that's why it's called a compromise. and after we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound economic footing, and it means asking the wealthiest among to us pay their fair share. i was one of those who was very fortun
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
, not talking about wars in iraq and afghanistan, not talking about natural disasters, disease, epidemics, not famine. i'm talking about our national debt. our national debt is the threat. it is the great e threa greatesr national security. i'll tell you this isn't a problem for one party, the other party, it is a problem for all of us as americans. now, i'm not the only one that's saying it. actually, the chairman of the -- of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, has said the most significant threat, the most significant threat to our nation's security is our debt. let me repeat, the most significant threat to our national security is the debt. you may notice, mr. president, that admiral mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. the presiding officer: would the senator from wyoming cease for a minute. could we have order, please. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming may continue. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as i was saying, you will note that admiral mullen makes -- makes no mention at all
another. >> host: two wars. >> guest: exactly. iraq and afghanistan. the velocity of the events and decisions were so amazing. there really was no breather. and if you look back on it in that context, it was an remarkable time for him to take over. and a lot of people asked me what is it like to interview president obama. what is he like in person? well, he's very methodical, disciplined, the qualities that you see in public, you see in private when you interview him. i've interviewed five presidents now, i've covered five presidents. it's interesting that every other one of the other four there would be some chitchat, a little social moment there in the beginning. i walked into the oval office, president obama say i've been thoroughly briefed. fire your questions away. that's it. we went right to the issues. that's the way he is. >> host: no ice breakers. >> guest: how's your son, your daughter? no. some people are a little taken back by that. they think maybe he should be outgoing or friendly. he's not a back slapping kind of leader. a lot of people like the steadiness they se
that it needs that is a small percentage for wasting infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the cftc that the 80 or $90 billion more that we need can't be done because of the deficit that people spent in $147 billion so we can keep subsidizing american farmers is nonsense. similarly with the fcc they want to turn in. they will bring in more money to the system than it will be given to run it. that's one effect. in fact, what you have running here is a catch 22. first, deny the fcc and cftc adequate funding. they in turn are not able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. then because we haven't been able to move as quickly, that's something they have imposed. obviously, you want the fcc and cftc to have smart people and information technology. i have to say i do not see it coming from the financial institutions. many of them recognize while you may not like the rules, if you've got the rules, you want them well run. this is coming from the republican party who just believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary that an unregulated free market works. you saw thi
arsenal. the current inventory is getting old and worn down from iraq and afghanistan. some equipment can be refurbished with life extension programs, but there is no getting around the fact that others must be replaced. when it comes to our military modernization accounts, he said the proverbial low-lying or low-hanging fruit, those weapons and other programs considered most questionable have not only been plucked, they have been stomped on and crushed. what remains are much-needed capabilities relating to our air superiority, our mobility, long-range strike, nuclear deterrents, maritime access, space and cyberwarfare, ground forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that our nation's civilian and military leadership deemed absolutely critical. and he gave examples of a new tanker. he noted the ones we have are twice as old as many of the pilots who are flying them. a new generation strike fighter, the f-35. he said we have got to build more ships. the size of the navy has sunk to the lowest number since prior to world war ii. the army and marines, doing the bulk of our fight
of the budget have been on the military side as we wage the war mechem iraq and afghanistan and participate in exercises in libya that's an expensive up undertaking. we know that has gone up 84%last military spending in the laste ten years 84%. we know the same purpose of time itat spending on mandatoryur programs wouldy, be like social security, medicare, medicaid,vea payments, spending for those u payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic diretionary discretionary spending whichde k would include things likerisons building highways, keepingrants federal prisons open, providings pell grants to college studentsr giving children from poor families early childhood education and for research, that's one section of the budgef that's 12% of the budget and in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up 0%. no increase in spending in thatf section.g goe most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years and mandatory programs for 32% over ten years. federal spending, the thing wef: can't seem t
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 73 (some duplicates have been removed)